Town Square

Plan to pay for high-speed rail draws fresh scrutiny

Original post made
on Nov 30, 2011

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's new business plan, which shows the price tag of the controversial project nearly tripling from initial estimates, is drawing a fresh wave of criticism from local officials, rail watchdogs and independent analysts who claim that the latest proposal to pay for the rail line would violate state law.

Posted by Pleasantonian
a resident of Mission Park
on Nov 30, 2011 at 9:18 amPleasantonian is a registered user.

I am amazed that anyone with half a brain could possibly still support this. I was horrified that it passed in the first place but for people to still support it is mind boggling. It will be the final straw to throw CA into complete financial ruin if allowed to move forward.

Posted by Watching the Boondoggle
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Echoing Pleasantonian's comments, what a travesty--driven by career politicians who are more interested in keeping their taxpayer-paid board positions and (generous, I'm sure) benefits rather than admitting this is a complete, utter train wreck (pun intended).

If all this money was redirected toward schools and our crumbling infrastructure (roads and bridges), we'd be much better off, but that makes too much sense.

I wish there was some way this whole thing could be completely stopped. It's not needed, it's too expensive, and it won't accomplish anything other than to put this state that much deeper in debt for decades to come.

More proof that the smartest people in this state certainly aren't the politicians who are running it--or better said, ruining it.

This will be Jerry Brown's legacy, if it goes forward. He wants to push this forward so he can say he created jobs in Calif, since he knows of no other way to promote employment other than through union payoffs.
By the way Joe Crosslin, loved your post....hilarious reference!

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2011 at 2:14 pm

High-Speed Rail Authority's new business plan details some significant differences from the original Proposition 1A and their recent Business Plan. The original 43 billion dollar price tag is now projected to be 2-3 times the advertised amount, while revenue projections are shrinking. Yet the HSRA still claims that this project is self sustaining. How the HSRA can continue to make the claim given increased cost and declining revenue projections is beyond suspect. My fear is that the project will end up costing taxpayers over 150 billion dollars assuming it's completed at all. Even then, because this projects numbers are so ridiculously out of line with initial projections from just a few short years ago, I suspect this is just one more transportation project that will require taxpayer subsidies for decades to come. California, and California taxpayers, can't afford this boondoggle. Here are some of the concerns expressed by the Legislative Analyst Office:

Phase 1 completion date extended 14 years. Completion of Phase 1, from the San Francisco's Transbay terminal to Anaheim, has been extended from 2020 to 2034.

Estimated cost of Phase 1 has more than doubled. The original cost of Measure A was an estimated 43 Billion. The recently released estimate from HSRA is 99-118 Billion

Initial Construction Segment Proposed Using Committed Funds. 6.3 Billion dollars (projected) will be spent on 130 miles of High-Speed Rail Line between Merced and Bakersfield. Note: there will be a legal challenge on this issue because the original plan called for initial funding to only be used on a "USABLE" corridor. This section of line is not classified as "Usable".

Possible Future Funding Sources Identified. The plan acknowledges that no future funding sources currently exist. Part of the original plan calls for future Private/Public partnership but acknowledges that private partnership won't happen until a USABLE portion of the HSR exists and is profitable.

Committed Funding Not Identified and Environmental Review Process Incomplete. Our review finds that the funding plan only identifies committed funding for the ICS, which is not a usable segment, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Proposition 1A.

Availability of Funding to Complete a Usable Segment Highly Uncertain. The possible future sources of funding necessary to complete Phase 1 that are identified in the draft business plan are highly speculative. In addition, Congress has approved no funding for high-speed rail projects for the next year. As a result, it is highly uncertain if funding to complete the high-speed rail system will ever materialize.

Posted by From the Mercury News
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm

"the rail line could be a $6 billion waste of tax funds at the expense of social services, education and other transportation projects."

Top analyst warns state could waste $6 billion over high-speed rail

The state's top analyst on Tuesday not only questioned the legality of launching a high speed-train, but also warned legislators that starting construction on the rail line could be a $6 billion waste of tax funds at the expense of social services, education and other transportation projects.

In the sharpest critique yet of the state's newly revised plan to spend two decades and $99 billion building a bullet train line, the Legislative Analyst's Office bashed planners for relying on "highly speculative" funding sources.

As a result, the analyst concluded that it's "highly uncertain" the full project will ever get built. Even so, the state intends to start construction in the Central Valley next year by spending $2.7 billion in state bonds plus a $3.3 billion federal grant to build a stretch of track too short for bullet train service -- a move that has already triggered a lawsuit. But passengers won't start zipping between San Francisco and Anaheim unless Congress bankrolls more than half the project, a dubious scenario considering federal lawmakers have killed all high-speed rail funds for two straight years.

"It appears doubtful that substantial additional federal support will be forthcoming anytime soon," the report says. "This makes it increasingly likely that the (initial stretch of track) may be all that is ever built," a project that is "unlikely to justify (the) expense."

""High-speed rail certainly faces a challenge that it does not have a dedicated revenue source like the gas tax," said Dan Richard, one of Gov. Jerry Brown's appointees to the California High-Speed Rail Authority board. "If the federal government chooses not to continue to fund high-speed rail, it's going to be very difficult to see how we can complete this.""

Posted by Charlotte
a resident of Spotorno Ranch
on Nov 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Instead of gowging citizen taxpayers on such a useless project, they should be finding ways to give us back our tax money. How about tax exemptions for people who drive HumVees and other SUVs? We already pay so much for gas, and then we're expected to donate to this boondoggal? Whom are they kidding?

Jane (posting as Charlotte)....leave it to you to post a sarcastic, babbling response full of spelling and grammatical errors. Why don't you just say what you feel...building this track to nowhere will only benefit your union buddies and further bury our state finances. Why should you care, you can always move back to the east coast when you're done bleeding this state dry.

Posted by UNION SNOW JOB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:09 pm

Barnidge: Can governor railroad through his $6 billion request?

"The $6 billion pays for only the rail system, by the way -- not the electrification, train cars or operating personnel -- just 130 miles of track."

"Gov. Jerry Brown said he will make an ill-advised request when the Legislature reconvenes after Christmas. OK, he didn't call it ill-advised, but a lot of people think it is.

He will ask for $6 billion ($2.7 billion in state bonds, $3.3 billion in federal grants) to begin work next fall on the first phase of a high-speed rail project that eventually will link (a) San Francisco to San Diego and (b) California to a mountain of debt.

This first stretch, connecting travel hot spots Bakersfield and Chowchilla (motto: "Great place for a women's prison"), says something about the rationale behind this undertaking.

Those destinations were not chosen because of customer demand or population density but because environmental permitting will be simpler, residential opposition should be modest and level terrain will make for easier construction.

In other words, it's the path of least resistance to get-it-while-you-can federal stimulus funding (which has already dried up).

The $6 billion pays for only the rail system, by the way -- not the electrification, train cars or operating personnel -- just 130 miles of track. The U.S. House Budget Committee, which specializes in mismanagement, gave "the train to nowhere" its Boondoggle Award. Not coincidentally, more federal funding for high-speed rail is in jeopardy...

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord: This hardly seems the time to assume added debt. It's like a man who can't keep up with payments on his Honda borrowing to buy a Tesla because it will save on fuel costs and help the planet.

"The costs are huge," DeSaulnier said. "There's no way it doesn't give you a little lump in your breast."

When you're up to your assets in fiscal problems is a strange time to be financing a dream."

You said it Senator DeSaulnier! BTW, the little lump in your breast is starting to look like a full set of Double D's. Web Link
What do others think? Read the comment section of the above link.

Posted by Robert Heeter
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:24 pm

The Census Bureau says California's population is 37,253,956.
The new budget estimate for the proposed fast train is $150,000,000,000.
That's a minimum of $4000 for every man, woman and child in the state.

And they haven't even broken ground yet, so the actual construction cost is likely far higher, not to mention the fact that it will have to be bond-financed, so there will also be interest costs.

What's the economic benefit to justify all of this cost? Can there possibly be enough ridership for the project to pay for itself?

The interest cost alone would run about $6,000,000,000 each year (assuming rates remain at the current low 4% level). That would be $160 per person per year for everyone in the entire state population. As an estimate, we might assume 10% of the ticket cost couldgo to pay interest, with 10% more to pay principal on the bonds, and the other 80% to actually pay to operate the railroad. If ticket prices were to compete with air, say $200 for a round trip, then the rail might generate $20 per ticket for interest payments. Just to pay for the interest, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE STATE would have to ride the train 8 TIMES EACH YEAR! Or pay the equivalent in taxes. I don't see that happening. (And all of this assumes that the train doesn't require ongoing subsidies like BART...)

The price tag is more now, wow, this is a surprise.
If they build the train, just remember how well they did in
Boston with the big dig. They could give free airline tickets to everyone and it would be a lot cheaper. This reminds me of the prison jobs in the old south, dig a hole, then fill it up, same thing here!

Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 1, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Thanks Kathleen for the web link to the Palo Alto forum.

As one commenter from this forum pointed out, the High Speed Rail Authority is costing California $750,000 a day! For nothing!

Another commenter pointed out that it would be cheaper for the state of California to pay for airline tickets for people traveling between LA and the Bay Area, then spend the money it will cost the state to build this retarded railroad.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name:*

Select your neighborhood or school community:*

Comment:*

Verification code:* Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.